Indyref 2 is a distraction from duties

I feel that the recent talk from First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor Alex Salmond’s statement on the “inevitable” referendum, less than a year from the first one, are an affront to the majority will of the Scottish people and to democracy.

Far from being a clear sign that the cause of Scottish independence has been rejected by more than 55 per cent of the population, it is merely treated as just another surmountable obstacle on the onward march to the inevitable.

I think the SNP surge at Westminster probably owes more to the decline of Labour in Scotland and people looking for another centre-left party to represent them, rather than a genuine boost for the cause of independence.

What would it take for the dream to die? Another referendum?

One after that? So much for the once-in-a-generation vote that we were promised by Nicola and Alex.

I respect the democratic will of the Scottish people who sent the “56” to Westminster but they were not sent there to fester with secessionist sentiment or to promote the Nationalist agenda of their party.

They were sent to represent their constituents in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and ultimately to work to benefit the entirety of the British people.

My generation came of age during the worst economic crisis since 1929.

We don’t want another half decade of political posturing and rhetoric from the SNP with the resultant political, economic and social uncertainty that this would produce.

We require stability, a unified United Kingdom and a diverse economy in order to reach our full potential, none of which the SNP seem willing to provide.

David Bone

Ailsa Street West

Girvan, South Ayrshire

I’m glad the First Minister has made it clear that a second independence referendum will be held only if the Scottish people wish it. But how will this be determined?

One option would be to hold a preliminary postal poll of registered voters, and a simple majority of those voting would form a mandate.

This would avoid the trouble and expense of another full-blown referendum campaign if the only appetite for it was amongst the minority of independence enthusiasts.

R A Wallace

Kincardine

Fife

Keith Howell (Letters, 31 July) gives us the perfect encapsulation of the proud unionist Scot when he equates our MPs standing up for Scotland at Westminster as “trouble-making”.

He also fails to grasp that one of the most important aspect of an MP’s responsibilities is to represent all of his constituents and not just those who voted for him.

In Pete Wishart’s constituency 26,821 people voted for other parties, and then of course there are those who did not vote at all.

In Mr Howell’s book only the “ardent” SNP voter cannot be trusted to raise legitimate concerns with their MP.

This is because we SNP voters are less discerning, less politically aware and more unreasonably demanding than the generally more reticent, but astute stalwart defenders of the Union.

Also our SNP MPs are under our control, completely biddable and unable to spot the difference between a constituent’s genuine concern and something that is vexatious, mischievous or just plain idiotic, such as the example kindly provided by David Allan (Letters, same day) when he suggests that his SNP MP, George Kerevan campaigns on his behalf against independence.